11 - DÉC 21 - Dép./audit. D. Pilditch

A.
I am a General News Reporter at The Daily Express. make this
statement in response to a request of the Leveson Inquiry (the
"Inquiry") to the solicitors for Express Newspapers dated
25 November 2011 with regard to the circumstances surrounding the
publication of articles in The Daily Express between September 2007
and January 2008 about Drs McCann.

B.
I confirm that alt matters in this statement are true and, unless I
specify to the contrary are based upon my own knowledge and a review
of the relevant documents Where matters are not within my own
knowledge, I state the source and believe the same to be true.

C.
For convenience, I have reproduced as subheadings the questions asked
of me in the 25 November 2011 letter.

Introduction

1.
By way of introduction, I have been a journalist for 26 years, I
started at a local newspaper, the Esher News and Maili where I spent
three years and was formally trained by the National Council for the
Training of Journalists.

2.
I worked for several years at Cassidy and Leigh, a national news
agency. In 1995 I joined The Daily Mirror as a news reporter, before
moving in 2003 to The Daily Express.

3.
I was the first Daily Express reporter to arrive in Portugal
following the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007, I spent
six weeks in the country on my first visit, and over the course of
the next nine months until February 2008, 1 was there a total of six
times.

Question
1 - What was the evidential basis for each of the stories you wrote in
relation to the McCanns, identifying (in each case) precisely the
information on which you based each of them?

4.
It became apparent in the days after arriving in Praia da Luz that
covering the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was going to be
uniquely challenging, Under Portugal’s secrecy of justice laws it
is illegal for anyone to publicly discuss the details of an on-going
police investigation. This means even the most senior detectives in
charge of an inquiry are not allowed: to speak to the press and the
media. Quite frankly this was a ludicrous state of affairs which made
covering the story near impossible.

5. Even Kate and Gerry McCann, who
were anxious to put out appeals for information, were made aware that
speaking: about the case could lead to a term of imprisonment of up
to two years.

6.This
lack of official co-operation between the police and the media, in my
view, fatally flawedthe
investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance from day one.

7.
In this country the relationship between the police and the media is
probably at its closest during a missing person inquiry. In the
absence of any substantial leads the police rely on the public to
provide information of possible sightings or people acting
suspiciously, This helps ensure the police have as much information
as possible available to them.

8.In
Portugal, there were none of the basic strategies or systems that we
would expect to be put into place in an investigation of this kind.

9.
As Gerry McCann pointed out in his statement the lack of formal
dialogue between the Policia Judiciaria (P J) and the public was
incredibly frustrating for everybody involved.

10.
In the critical early hours and days after Madeleine McCann
disappeared there were no public appeals. It took a number of days
before police released details of the clothes Madefeine was wearing
when she disappeared - and that was only done under enormous pressure
from the international media.

11.
Again under pressure from the media, the police held a series of
press conferences in the early days after Madeleine’s disappearance
which turned out to be farcical because no useful information was
forthcoming.

12.
A detective from Lisbon who specialized in investigating art thefts
was brought in as a media liaison officer. Unfortunately he refused
to confirm or deny any information that was put to him and was unable
to give any guidance either on or off the record. In short, his
appointment was a complete waste of time

13.
As in every case, my stories were compiled using numerous sources of
information. In my time in Portugal I interviewed witnesses, many
locals connected with businesses, resort workers, holidaymakers and
ex-pats - a number of whom became contacts and regular sources of
information,

14.
1 incorporated copy filed by the Press Association and independent
news agencies based in Britain and abroad, along with copy filed by
colleagues back home - members of the McCanns’ families were
releasing information and photographs to help the search.

15.
The McCanns themselves I~ad various people representing them, In the
early stages a spokesman was appointed by the holiday company the
family had travelled with. Subsequently there were two Foreign Office
officials who helped them one of whom was Clarence Mitchell.

16,
In September 2007, after the McCanns returned to Britain, Mr Mitchell
was taken on by the couple as their official spokesman.

17.
I have written a great many stories about the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann since May 4 2007, I have also written hundreds of
other stories relating to a huge range of subjects and issues, It
would be impossible to forensically examine a series of stories
written four years ago and explain precisely where each fact was
sourced from. However, when reports were followed up from Portuguese
newspapers and TV networks that is clearly spelled out in my stories.

18.
The McCanns were always approached to comment on stories through
their spokesman and those comments were clearly attributed. An
addition to quoting from Portuguese newspapers and the Drs McCanns’
official spokesman I approached my own sources.

19.
In their evidence the McCanns. referring to the press in general
terms, said that many stories had been "made up" and that
they did not believe "police sources" were genuine. In the
case of every story I wrote, the police sources I quoted were
genuine. I had three sources in Portugal who provided me with
information. Two were Portuguese journalists who were in daily
contact with the most senior officers investigating Madeleine
McCann’s disappearance. The third was a translator who worked for
the Portuguese Police and translating and interpreting in the
Portuguese legal system.

20,
The stories that have been selected in this file must be looked at in
the context of how events were unfolding on the ground during this
time whe~7 the Portuguese police investigation had reached a
particular stage.

21.
Despite the barriers thrown up by the Portuguese criminal justice
system, I was able to obtain an accurate and truthful insight into
on-going developments within the police investigation at that time.
Indeed, by this point fn time, one of my contacts was informing me of
day-to-day developments as they were taking place and before they
were being written about in Portuguese newspapers. This enabled me to
verify the accuracy of the information I was being gwen. For example,
I was told of a series of operations and searches that would For
Distribution To CP’s be taking place at particular times and on
particular days - and was able to personally witness these events
taking place,

22.
Although I was confident of the veracity of: the reports I was
writing, due to the secrecy of justice laws they were impossible to
prove, to any satisfactory legal standard, at that time. The fact is
that every newspaper, TV network or media organisation that reported
on: details of the investigation into Madeleine McCann,s
disappearance were in the same boat.

23.
Due to the restrictions of the Portuguese law; anyone who was unhappy
about something that had been written or said about them and wished
to take legal action would almost certainly have been successful. As
a journalist this is a wholly unsatisfactory position which, in my
view, leaves news organisations at the mercy of potential litigants,
They simply are unable to defend themselves.

24.
It was only months later, in July 2008 that Portugal’s Attorney
General formally closed the investigation into Madeleine McCann’s
disappearance. Under the Portuguese system, the authorities released
the official police file - more than 10,000 documents including
photographs, official reports and witness statements including those
of the McCanns. Through the release of those documents and subsequent
Jegal actions in Portuga! it is now a matter of public record that
the reports I was writing between September 2007 and January 2008
were truthful and accurate.

Question
2 - what checks if any did you undertake or cause to undertake to
verify the accuracy of each of these stories?

25.
All my stories were checked wi[h more than one source prior to
publication, Once Clarence Mitchell was appointed as Drs McCanns’
spokesman, it was agreed that all stories would be bounced off him
rather than the Drs McCann directly; This was strictly adhered to. On
every occasion, Portuguese :)olice refused to comment on grounds that
the inquiry was subject to judicial secrecy.

26.
Leicestershire Police, the UK force handling the investigation, took
the decision neither to comment nor - unusually for a force involved
in a high profile on-going inquiry - give off the record guidance to
journalists with story queries. Instead they referred all journalists
to their Portuguese counterparts - who refused to comment.

Question
3 - Why did you not seek comment from the McCanns before these
stories were published?

27.
On each occasion, I sought comment from Drs McCanns’
representatives,

Question
4 - What legal advice, if any was taken in relation to these issues?

28.
Upon filing each story it would have been viewed by the News Editor
of the day and a lawyer: it would then have been passed to a sub
editor who would cut it to fit the required space on the page and add
a headline. As a news reporter I have no involvement in the wording
of headlines that accompany my stories, Though my involvement usualfy
ends with the filing of my story the news desk, lawyer and sub editor
are obviously free to contact me if they have any additional queries
or require me to make further checks.

Question
5- Please explain the nature of sub-editorial and editorial
involvement in each of the stories you wrote explaining in
particular the steps they took to satisfy themselves that the said
stories were accurate and that there was a public interest in their
publication. In each case, you are required to name the sub,editors
and editors involved.

29.
When I file a story f have no say over where it will appear in the
paper, what prominence it will be given or even if it will appear in
the paper at all. I play no part in that decision.making process.
However, there is always frequent dialogue throughout the day between
the reporters on the ground, and the editors in the newsroom,
particularly with regard to the checking of stories and sources.

Conclusion

30.
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann was an extraordinary and unique
event. As a news reporter with 26 years, experience I approached my
coverage of Madeleine’s disappearance exactly the same way as I did
all the other major running news stories I have covered during that
time. My aim was - and always is - to interview witnesses, check out
information from sources, and speak to individuals, investigators and
officials involved in an attempt to discover the truth. The aspect
that made the case truly unusual was the wall of silence and lack of
guidance to journalists from police both in Portugal and the UK,

31,
In the absence of these critical sources or official comment that
could be attributed to a named police source or authority, I took
steps to obtain the relevant information by the best available route.
~ approached news/TV reporters who had solid contacts within the
Portuguese police for information on the investigation and relied on
the services of Mr Mitchell as a third party spokesman for Drs
McCann.

Robert Jay : Sir, the next
witness is Mr Pilditch.Lord Justice Leveson :
Thank you.David Pilditch (sworn)RJ : Please sit down,
Mr Pilditch, make yourself comfortable and tell us your full name.DP : David Hamilton
Pilditch.RJ : You'll find in the
bundle in front of you, I hope under tab 2, your witness statement
has been signed and contains a statement of truth. Do you stand by
this evidence?DP : Yes.RJ : I'm going to
ask you first of all to tell us something about yourself. You have
been a journalist for 26 years now; is that correct?DP : That's correct.RJ : You started at
a local paper, you were formally trained by the National Council for
the Training of Journalists.You worked for a national news agency.
For eight yearsyou
were at the Daily Mirror and then you moved to the Daily Express in
2003; is that correct?DP : That's correct.

RJ : I think you are still at the Daily Express as a general news
reporter; is that right?DP : That's right.

RJ : In relation to the Madeleine McCann story, you tell us that you went
to Portugal in 2007, indeed you were there a total of six times until
February 2008, and you were six weeks in the country at your first
visit; is thatcorrect?DP : Yes, that's correct, six weeks, yeah.RJ : Can I ask you first of all, please, in your own words to tell us
about the "uniquely challenging" aspects ofcovering
this story? It's paragraph 4 of your statement. I'm not going to ask
you to read it out, but o tell us why it was uniquely challenging.DP : Well, it was obviously a story of great interest and the problem
was sort of accessing information from thepolice
because of the secrecy of justice laws, which meant that it was
illegal for them to discuss any details of the case or the
investigation. Normally in a story like that, you would expect the
police to be organising appeals and they'd have a strategy of dealing
with the media and the press. But it wasn't there in this case.

RJ : They didn't have a formal strategy because under Portuguese law it
was forbidden to speak to the press; is that correct?DP : That's right.

RJ : Then you tell us in the final sentence of paragraph 4: "Quite
frankly this was a ludicrous state of affairs which made covering the
story near impossible."

DP : That's correct.RJ : Did you mean by that getting to the truth of the matter or did you
mean by that -- well, what did you mean by that?DP : Getting to the truth, yes. I mean, it was as if you'd been
transported like Dr Who into some Orwellian nightmare where the truth
is impossible to find.RJ : It might be said if the truth is impossible to find, a journalist
cannot properly say anything?DP : Well, that's right, because certainly in relation to the police
investigation, in a story like this you'd expectthat
the primary information would be coming from the police, and in this
case that just wasn't happening, so you are in an impossible
situation because obviously you're trying to do everything to make
sure that you canget
to the bottom of what's happened to Madeleine McCann. The parents
were in the end left to do that job that the police
would normally do.

RJ : Did you feel under
any pressure to produce stories in relation to this case?DP : There was obviously a
lot of pressure because there was newspapers and TV networks from all
over Britain and Europe there, and the interest was in the story.
You've obviously got to -- you can't sort of not cover the story of
something that -- that's why I'm saying it's ludicrous, because you
have to be in a position to cover the story. That's in everybody's
interest.RJ : You're making
it sound, maybe this is the case, that you were on the horns of a
dilemma. On the one hand you were under pressure to cover the story;
on the other hand you couldn't cover it because you couldn't get to
the truth. Is that a fair characterisation?DP : That's right.
But you want to make sure, as a journalist, that you've got facts and
proper information that you're dealing with, but without the police
co-operation it's impossible to do that.RJ : You say in
paragraph 6: "The lack of official cooperation between the
policeand the media in my view
fatally flawed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from
dayone."DP : Yes.RJ : Why do
you say that?DP : Because of these lack
of appeals, there was just no ― the things that should have been
done, the strategies that should have been put in place by the police
were not there, so at the time when it was most important that people
were alerted to what was going on, that didn't happen. And
throughout the whole investigation, I think this lack of information
meant that -- and there were leaks of information as well, which
meant that, as I say, there was no strategy. It was just confusion
allround, where there should
have been focus.LJL :
But isn't that then the story?DP : Well, the story
is to find out what's happened to Madeleine McCann.LJL : No, isn't the story the lack of focus and the accusation?
And obviously to find Madeleine, but isn't that the position rather
than just repeating --DP : That was the
story that we were writing in the early stages. The story about the
confusion, about the lack of information.LJL : I'm running ahead of Mr Jay and I shouldn't.RJ : Paragraph
13, please, Mr Pilditch. You make it clear that the police could not
be an official source of information,
but you tell us in paragraph 13: "My stories were compiled using
numerous sources of information." Can we just list, please, your
sources of information? You say first of all:"I interviewed
witnesses, many locals connected with businesses, resort workers,
holidaymakers and expats."What information did they give you
which bore on the Madeleine McCann story which was relevant?DP : Well, the police had been round the resort and other areas on
their own enquiries, and we were finding outlines
of enquiry that the police were pursuing through speaking to local
people and they'd been given descriptions of potential suspects,
things like that and you'd get a whole load of witnesses giving you
the same description, then you have a pretty good idea what the
police are working on, and then you go to the policeand
they can't tell you if that's right or wrong.RJ : So the suspects, are these people who were suspected of having
abducted Madeleine; is that right?DP : I think that's right, yes. I mean, the police were putting out a
description of a particular man that they -- I think witnesses had
described being near the apartment, a potential suspect.RJ : Okay. And what about the locals connected with businesses?
Is this the same sort of enquiry you were making?

DP : That's exactly what
I'm saying. I mean, in the early stages, when we arrived on the
story, did what we do on all stories, which is go around speaking to
people in the vicinity and trying to find out what they knew.RJ : So during this phase,
is this right, you were under the impression that the police focus
was on an abductor?DP : Well, it certainly
was, and -- I mean, there were various lines of enquiry that emerged,
but certainly in the very early days they were putting out various
descriptions and there were also potential sightings that were
reported as well, but this information wasn't coming from the police
directly.RJ : You say in
paragraph 18, when you're dealing with other sources of information,
you'd previously identified Mr Clarence Mitchell as being the
McCanns' official spokesman, which we know about. Paragraph 18: "In
addition to quoting from Portuguese newspapers and the Drs McCanns'
official spokesman I approached my own sources."Could you make it clear
for us, please, it's dealt with in paragraph 19, who your own sources
were?

DP : What I'm saying
is that we were looking at the Portuguese
newspapers every day and that gave you a sort of starting point,
very often, of what sort of lines you might be pursuing on a
particular day. But then, as it became apparent that the police
weren't going to co-operate directly, I had to try and make contact
with them in whichever way I could, and the way I did that was by
identifying journalists who had -- from the area and crime reporters
who'd got very good police contacts and they were in daily contact
with them, with the most senior officers in the case, as I've said,
who were investigating the crime.

RJ : You identify
three sources, don't you, who provided you with information, you say.
Two were Portuguese journalists who, you say, were in daily contact
with the most senior officers investigating Madeleine's
disappearance. The third was a translator who worked for the
Portuguese police and translated, interpreted in the Portuguese legal
system.

DP : Yes.

RJ : Is that right?

DP : Yes.

RJ : So they were,
as it were, your sources? You haven't given their names, but in
terms of who they were --

DP : Yeah.RJ : -- these are
the individuals we're talking about?DP : These were my
best sources. I mean, during the course of the time I was there,
there were other people, but these were the ones that I used on a
regular basis.

RJ : So is this right: the
senior officers in the Portuguese police who, under Portuguese law,
were not supposed to brief Portuguese journalists, were doing just
that, unofficially, and then you were, as it were, picking up on the
scraps of their briefings from your contact with those journalists?
Is that right?DP : Yes. And if there
was -- I was able to sort of develop a dialogue with the police
through these third-party sources, so sometimes in the Portuguese
newspapers they didn't -- there was only just one or two lines that
weren't developed that may need more developing, so I was able to ask
questions to the police, not directly, but through the journalists
who were talking to them every day.RJ : So you put a
question to the journalists, the journalists to the police, and the
answer came back; is that what you're saying, Mr Pilditch?DP : Well, the
answer didn't always come back, but yeah, that was the process that I
was working through.RJ : You say in
paragraph 21: "Despite the barriers thrown up by the Portuguese
criminal justice system, I was able to obtain an accurate and
truthful insight into ongoing developments within the police
investigation at that time." Is that right?DP : Yes.

RJ : But in truth, is this
not also right, that the best you could do was to obtain from your
Portuguese journalists their report of what senior officers were
apparently telling those Portuguese journalists?DP : Sorry?RJ : The best you could do
was to obtain from the two Portuguese journalists who were your main
source their report of what they were apparently being told by
senior officers within the Portuguese police service?DP : Yes.RJ : You say in
paragraph 21, five lines down -- maybe I should read the preceding
sentence: "Indeed, by this point in time, one of my contacts
..." Is this one of the three you had identified previously?DP : Yes.RJ : "... was
informing me of day-to-day developments as they were taking place and
before they were being written about in Portuguese newspapers. This
enabled me to verify the accuracy of the information I was being
given." Would it be fair to say that enabled you to verify some
the accuracy of what you were being given?DP : Yes. It satisfied
myself that this wasn't just information that was being given to me
that wasn't very good information; it confirmed that my source was
dealing, as he said, with the most senior officers in the case.

RJ : Can I ask you about
paragraph 22: "Although I was confident of the veracity of the
reports I was writing, due to the secrecy of justice laws they were
impossible to prove, to any satisfactory legal standard, at that
time. The fact is that every newspaper, TV network or media
organisation that reported on details of the investigation into
Madeleine McCann's disappearance were in the same boat."DP : Mm.RJ : You're
effectively saying there that given all theproblems you've
identified, in particular the restrictions imposed by Portuguese law,
on one level, at least, what you were writing about was impossible to
prove to any satisfactory legal standard. Is that what you're
saying?DP : Yeah. I mean,
I knew that the reports were correct, but I also knew because they --
there was no confirmation, that there were going to be difficulties
if any complaints were made because they just weren't from a publicly
declared statement.

RJ : I appreciate your
role as journalist is not to obtain legal advice, not to edit the
story, but thesedifficulties which you
are frankly referring to here, did they cause you to hesitate at all
in writing the stories you did?DP : Yeah. You feel
uncomfortable writing stories where you're being put in a position
where you can't do it in the way that you're used to, to be certain
that what you're saying is fair and accurate, and the only way I felt
that I could get round that would be to just explain the information
in terms of this is where the information's being sourced from. So
if it was -- this information's coming from the Portuguese police, I
don't know if it's 100 per cent correct, but I know that it's coming
from the Portuguese police.RJ : Your
discomfiture, was that something you discussed with your news desk?DP : Yeah, I mean we
had dialogues all the time, every day, and I explained to them the
problems that we were having and, as I say, you couldn't just not
write a story, particularly in the early stages of the enquiry, where
what you were doing was basically launching appeals and trying to get
people to come forward. So basically, every day when I'd speak to the
news desk, normally you'd say, "Look, this is what we know, this
is what the police are saying, and that's taken as being fact",
but the conversations I was having with the news desk were explaining
the information I had with all the caveats that were attached to it.

RJ : Did you tell your
news desk that which we see in paragraph 23 of your statement,
namely: "Due to the restrictions of the Portuguese law, anyone
who was unhappy about something that had beenwritten or said about
them and wished to take legal action would almost certainly have been
successful." Was that sentiment shared with your news desk at
the time?DP : Well, this is
what I felt on the ground. I'm not a legal expert, but I felt that
just the situation as it presented itself, that that was the case,
and I'm certain that the news desk would have had conversations with
lawyers about this, and there would have been discussions, ongoing
discussions, and that was the situation that we were in and there was
no way around it.RJ : I must persist
with the question.DP : Sorry, yes.RJ : Yes. Did you
share your discomfiture with your news desk?DP : Yes. I said "If
we're going to have any problems, we may not be able to defend these
things because we just cannot get any confirmation", and that
was the difficulty.

RJ : And what was the
reaction from your news desk, if any?DP : Well, they took my
comments on board and as I said, you're in a situation where it's a
story of great interest and you've got newspapers and TV from all
around the world who are covering it and you know that your rivals
are working on similar information and they've got similar issues,
and it's the sort of process that, you know, reporters go through
every day when they're explaining what information they've got, and,
you know, I knew that all I could do was present it in the -- with
sort of explaining the sources that the -- where the information had
come from.RJ : You told us
about three or four minutes ago you couldn't not write the story.DP : Yes.RJ : And then you
went back to what the position was at the early stages with the
missing child --DP : Yes.RJ : -- and all of
that, but the position we're talking about now with the defamatory
articles, they were written between September 2007 and January 2008.DP : Mm.

RJ : The McCanns were
given arguido status under Portuguese law I think on 7 September
2007?DP : Yes.

RJ : It might be said,
well, you could not write the story. There was no imperative to write
stories which you knew wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny. Do you
see that point?DP : Yes. But the
position that we were in was that this was probably the most
significant development that had happened up to that time in the
investigation.RJ : Sorry, what was, Mr
Pilditch?DP : Well, when the
McCanns were named arguidos. It's not something you could ignore.
It's not something where you could just present a story that was
based on a comment from the McCanns' official spokesperson.LJL : Did you do any work to find out precisely what that meant
in Portuguese law?DP : Yes, a lot of
work, yeah. We spoke to lawyers in Portugal, and it was explained to
me that there were subtle differences between arguidos and
suspects.There's no legal equivalent.LJL : They're merely entitled to have legal representation and
have other advantages, isn't that right? That's what Dr McCann
told us, I think. I remove the word "merely" from what I
just said.DP : No, we were given a
completely different version by the lawyers in Portugal. We were
told that effectively an arguido is a suspect. It gives the police
an opportunity to put much tougher questions than they could to a
witness, and they were allowed legal representation and I think the
McCanns themselves were given some very, very tough questions from
the Portuguese police.LJL : So proceedings in English terms would be active?DP : There are
subtle differences, but I don't think they were arrested or anything
like that. But effectively that was the -- was what was explained to
us by the lawyers in Portugal.RJ : Yes. I'm
not sure whether you fully saw the point of that last question, Mr
Pilditch.DP : Sorry.RJ : That it brings
into play contempt of court issues.DP : I see. Well, I
-- mm, yeah, I don't -- can't, really.The problem is that the
McCanns' spokespeople were briefing the press at this time and
explaining that -- even sort of the extent where sort of things that
the Portuguese police were accusing them of.

RJ : We have a situation
here where the McCanns are accorded, if that's the right verb,
arguido status under Portuguese law. They are prevented, in any
event, from speaking out.DP : Yes.

RJ : To say that, this is
right, they face a maximum two years sentence of imprisonment if they
do. You can't speak directly to the police because that is also
prevented under Portuguese law.DP : Yes.RJ : I'm just
concerned with what are the imperatives, if any, which drive the
stories which we know you come to write?DP : As I'm saying,
this was a very big development in the story, and there were
newspapers and TV networks reporting what was going on, and obviously
there would be discussions on the newspaper from lawyers and all
sort of parties that would be involved, and I think, you know, the
actual legal sort of aspects would be something that the lawyers
would be discussing.RJ : You make it
sound as if the story acquires a life of its own and almost defines
itself, and then, like a large snowball, runs down a snowy incline.
Is that fair or not? I suspect you'll say it isn't, but could you
help us with that?DP : I think if you put it
into context of the story, the story was such a huge story, and I
suppose you're right, I mean there is a sort of a vortex, isn't
there, that is created.

RJ : You keep on using the
term "the story". What do you mean precisely by that?DP : The disappearance of
Madeleine McCann.RJ : Yes. But we're
moving away from that, aren't we, with the particular pieces you
write?DP : Well, I was
just reporting on day-to-day developments and that's what my job was
to do.RJ : Okay. You say
under paragraph 25 that all your stories were checked with more than
one source prior to publication: "Once Clarence Mitchell was
appointed as [their] spokesman, it was agreed that all stories would
be bounced off him rather than the Drs McCann directly. This was
strictly adhered to." In relation, though, to the stories which
we know were by agreement deemed to be defamatory, did Mr Mitchell
comment on all such stories?DP : Well, he
commented on every story, and very often, you know, in quite strident
terms, just explaining that this was part of a black propaganda
campaign and that there was no evidence to back up what the police
were saying.

RJ : Then you make it
clear in paragraph 25, and this would have to be the case under
Portuguese law: "On every occasion, Portuguese police refused
to comment on grounds that the enquiry was subject to judicial
secrecy."DP : On the record --RJ : In other words, in
order to get to the truth or otherwise of the story, which is what
you were writing about, you couldn't, because the police were
refusing to help you. Is that fair?DP : They were
refusing to tell us on the record. At the same time, they were at
this time leaking particularly aggressively.RJ : Some people
within the police were leaking for whatever reason; is that not
right?DP : Well, it was
the senior detectives working on the case.RJ : Doing it off
the record; is that right?DP : Yes.RJ : Just look at
some of the individual pieces, please. These are under tab 4. It's
part of exhibit JM2. I'm going to look first of all at page 31647.
It is right to say that all the pieces I'm going to refer to, I
believe all of them, are agreed to be defamatory pieces and very
substantial compensation was paid, so I'm not, as it were, concerned
to reopen that matter, which won't and can't be reopened.DP : Mm. Sorry, I don't
know where I'm looking.RJ : I'm immediately
looking at the wrong page.

LJL : Yes, because this is not an article written by this witness.RJ : My note is
suspect.LJL : What's the date of the article, Mr Jay? Do you know?RJ : 29 November.
No, my notes are just wrong. I think we're going to do better with
31645 on 1 December 2007.DP : Yes, okay.RJ : This is one we
see you co-author.DP : Mm.RJ : Can I be clear
first of all about one matter. It says at the start: "Gerry and
Kate 'still the prime suspects'." That's the headline. Were you
responsible for that headline?DP : No.RJ : You say that
with confidence. I'm sure in line with usual practice, it won't be
in dispute that the editor or subeditor is responsible for that. Do
I have that right?DP : Well, it's not
the subeditor, it would be the editor or the night editor. I'm not
too sure who writes headlines, but it's not the subeditors. They
just fit stories into space.

RJ : I think it's
important for our purposes today to establish it's not you, okay?DP : No.RJ : Is that always the
case with these headlines; it's never the journalist, it's always the
editor?DP : Well, it's never the
journalist. You know, something that I think the editor or night
editor -- I mean, I'm not too sure, to be honest. The editor would
have a final say about it, but --RJ : But we can see
from the first line of the text: "Kate and Gerry McCann are
still regarded as the prime suspects in the disappearance of their
daughter despite inconclusive findings from DNA evidence."DP : Yes.RJ : So that's your
wording, isn't it?DP : No.RJ : You don't think
it is?DP : You see, I
didn't really write this story. This has Nick Fagge's name on it.
Normally, if you've got somebody who is named first, they are the
people who do most of the writing. I do remember this one because
I'd just arrived in Portugal that day and I think Nick Fagge was
being replaced and there had been a meeting going on between the
British ambassador and senior police officers at police headquarters
in Faro, and I went straight from the airport to the police
headquarters and basically I provided a bit of colour from police
headquarters. I wrote about sort of official cars coming out of
these sort of colonial style police buildings and things. That was
my role in the story. Because nobody wanted to talk to me, so I was
just sort of stood outside the police headquarters.RJ : Fair enough,
but the general tenor of this is that the line of investigation
within the Portuguese police was seeking to establish the truth of a
hypothesis that Madeleine died as a result of an accident in the flat
and the parents then hid and disposed of the body; is that right?DP : What, this
particular story?RJ : Mm.DP : I can't comment
on this particular story.RJ : Let's look at
another one that you might be able to.LJL : But your name is at the top of it. Should that be just
ignored?DP : No, I explained
why my name is on the top of it, because I played a role in the
story, but that's all I did, stand outside police headquarters.LJL : You didn't read the story before it went out under your
name?DP : No. I would have
filed my bit of copy to either the news desk or to Nick Fagge, who
was compiling the story, and it would have just been inserted into
the story. Very often reporters write stories and don't get their
bylines in the papers because somebody else is the main reporter who
is pulling it all together. Very often there could have been more
reporters or could have been more input into this story, but I don't
think there was. I think Nick Fagge wrote the story and I, as I say,
arrived at the airport and went straight to the police headquarters
in my hire car, so that's all I did, and then informed him of what
had happened at the police headquarters, which was just I was
witnessing what took place at this meeting.RJ : In terms
of the procedure, though, Mr Pilditch, the assumption I was making,
but it may be incorrect in the light of what you're saying, is that
this is emailed back to London; is that right?DP : Yes. I can't
remember whether I emailed my part of it to London or if I emailed
it to Nick Fagge, but it would be one of the other, I think.RJ : Isn't it
standard practice that if, on the face of it, a story is being
coauthored, that the copy is sent to you -- imagine Mr Fagge is the
primary author -- for comment, you approve it or not, and then,
you having made any contribution you see fit, the text is emailed to
London?DP : No.

RJ : Probably here by Mr
Fagge. Is that not what happens?DP : No. I wouldn't have
seen the whole article. As I say, I would have simply passed on the
part of the story I was doing to the news desk or -- you know, I
think that's what would have happened -- or the reporter who was
compiling the story.RJ : Okay. So which
part of this piece do you say you did write?DP : To be honest,
I'm not even sure if anything went in, because, as I say, I went to
the police headquarters where this meeting was taking place.RJ : Yes?DP : And I would
have written some colour about, you know, what I saw. I saw the
police officers and I saw the people that I recognised, who I knew
who they were, but there was a whole load of, as I say, official
cars. Basically, I was stood outside the police station and when the
meeting was over, I saw the people who were involved, or some of
them, leaving the police headquarters and I'd have just filed some
colour about what I saw at the scene. That was my involvement in thestory.

RJ : I think it looks as
if, from what you're saying, that in truth Mr Fagge was the sole
author, your name shouldn't have been on this at all.DP : No, because --

RJ : We're not sure where
we're seeing the colour you imparted.DP : It looks like
someone's knocked it out of the story. Doesn't look like it's made
the cut. The only thing that made the cut was my name.RJ : But we do see
from the penultimate sentence: "The McCanns were named as
suspects on September 7."DP : Yes.RJ : Are you sure
that's right?DP : Well, I didn't
write this story. That's what I'm saying.RJ : Let's look at
one which we can be sure that you did write. 31643, dated 3
December. Just cast an eye over it. Your source here is someone
within the Portuguese police speaking to a journalist, who then
speaks to you; is that correct?DP : It looks like
it. I mean, it doesn't source any -- doesn't say that there was any
other -- I mean, I haven't attributed any other source to it, so --RJ : The only
attribution, but this is not going to help us much, is at the very
end: "The source added: 'Once interviews have been conducted the
filed will be passed ...'."So whoever the source was, was close
to the police investigation, as it were, and we know from the
evidence you're giving us it's likely to be one of the two
journalists, isn't it?DP : Yeah.

RJ : In terms of the
colour, though, which you refer to in the context of the previous
piece, which you say you didn't have a hand in, the term "fingers
of suspicion", whose was that?DP : I don't know.
I can't say at this --RJ : Might it have
been your term, Mr Pilditch?DP : No. I mean,
it's not -- I don't really know what it means, to be honest.RJ : Well, because
some of the language here might, by some, be said to be somewhat
loaded.DP : Mm.RJ : For example:
"Portuguese detectives could fly to Britain to sit in on
make-or-break interviews ..." You're making it sound as if guilt
or innocence might turn on the result. It is quite heightened, isn't
it?DP : Well, I mean, we
certainly knew that this was something that Portuguese police were
considering at that time.RJ : Okay. And then what
about the sentence about eight lines down: "Detectives want to
focus on the 10 issues that have haunted them ..."?DP : Mm.RJ : That must be your
terminology, mustn't it?DP : Well, they were
obviously struggling, weren't they, the detectives?LJL : I'm sorry, Mr Pilditch, I'd just like to understand this.
In the first sentence it says "fingers of suspicion". Are
you saying you didn't write that?DP : I can't recall
whether that was my specific wording or not.LJL : Well, do you read the articles when they come out in the
paper and think about whether they've been changed back in London?
Or do you not bother?DP : What I'm saying
is I wrote this story four years ago, and I can't remember if those
were my specific words or not.LJL : And "10 issues that have haunted them", Mr Jay's
question, is that your word?DP : I'm saying the same
thing. I mean, I can't remember if I used that word. The thing is
that I file my story and there are other processes involved after
that, so if I'd written this story last week, then I'd know exactly
-- well, even if I wrote it last week, I wouldn't know exactly my
specific words, without referring to the original copy that I'd sent.

RJ : Did you not
assemble -- forgive me for putting it in these terms -- these ten
issues from what you'd gleaned from reading Portuguese newspapers and
then turned it into a story in your own language?DP : Well, I think
it would have been speaking to my source. I wrote a story, I
presented a story the way I'd written it, and I can't tell you for
certain whether this is the story that I wrote word for word. I
doubt that it was, because it normally isn't, but I don't know which
words I used and which words were used in part of the subediting
process.RJ : Your source was
only telling you that interviews could take place. I think my
question was in order to work out what the subject matter of the
interviews might be, you looked at Portuguese newspapers and
assembled what you thought were the ten key issues which might be put
to the McCanns. Is that not a fair supposition?DP : Well, this is
what my source would have been telling me, yeah.RJ : Are you sure about
that?DP : Well, I mean why
wouldn't it be?RJ : Can I just pick up on
one of the ten points. The forensic findings, do you see that?DP : Yeah.

RJ : "-- though not
conclusive -- that Madeleine's body was in the spare tyre ..."DP : Yes.RJ : You're
suggesting there, aren't you, that there were findings -- presumably
this is a reference to DNA evidence -- which established, although
did not do so conclusively, that Madeleine's body was in the spare
tyre well in the boot; is that right?DP : Yeah.RJ : The DNA
evidence did not go anything like that far, did it?DP : Well, I think
at this time it wasn't known how far it had gone.RJ : That's
precisely the point. You're making it sound asif there were
findings, when in fact the DNA evidence, if you're going to properly
characterise it, was at best inconclusive.DP : I think we know
that now, but I don't think we knew that at this time.RJ : Well, what
did you know at the time about the DNA evidence?DP : Well, that there was
DNA evidence that was being examined.RJ : But you didn't know
what the results of the examination were, did you?DP : No.

RJ : The McCanns'
evidence, at page 35 of the transcript --DP : Transcript?RJ : Sorry, pardon
me, Mr Pilditch, it's under tab 5.DP : Yeah.RJ : The question
which was put at the bottom of page 34: "The overall flavour or
thrust of this article [not the article we're looking at now, but it
doesn't matter, the point is the same] was that there was DNA
evidence which linked your daughter with a hire car. What do you say
about that? "Answer: The first thing to say, it's simply
untrue. Madeleine's DNA was not uncovered from the hire car. That's
the first thing."DP : We know that
now, but I don't think we knew that then. The police were saying that
it had been.RJ : The police were
saying that some what might have been human tissue was found in the
car.DP : Yes.

RJ : And that they had
done some tests in Portugal on it and the results were inconclusive?DP : Well, I think the
tests were carried out in Britain.RJ : And they were also
inconclusive, weren't they?DP : Well, they were,
yeah.RJ : I'm just troubled by
--DP : I'm just explaining
what the police --RJ : I'm just troubled by
the use of the term "findings" in relation to this eighth
or ninth finger of suspicion. I must suggest to you it is wrong and
unfair to have characterised them as findings at all.DP : Well a finding
--RJ : Whether or not
one adds in parentheses that they are not conclusive.DP : A finding is
something that you found, isn't it? I don't know. But they found
something and it was something that was being analysed.RJ : There are two
different senses in which the word "finding" is being used.
The first is, "We've found something which we believe to be
human tissue", and the second is, "We've analysed the human
tissue and our finding is X", the finding may be it is the DNA
of a particular individual.DP : Yes.RJ : We never got,
did we, to that second stage at all; do you see that?

DP : Well, I was
explaining what the findings were. I mean -- mm.RJ : I think I've taken
that point as far as I reasonably can with you. I'm not going to look
at all of these, but you did write quite a few of these articles.
There's another one at 31640.DP : Mm. This is -- is
this before or after that one? Yeah.RJ : Although it's
earlier in the bundle, we are working --DP : Backwards.RJ : --
chronologically forwards, I hope, because the previous one was dated
3 December.DP : No, you're
right, yeah.RJ : Here you are
reporting what the police theory was at that point, at least the
theory which was being apparently put out by some in the police to
Portuguese journalists.DP : Mm.RJ : Namely,
Madeleine died in an accident and then the parents covered up the
crime and later disposed of their daughter's body. You do rightly
say in this piece, about eight lines down: "Months of
painstaking analysis on DNA uncovered in Portugal had so far failed
to produce conclusive

evidence." That was
the position. And then there were going to be further tests, I
believe, in this country; is that right?

DP : I can't recall the
chronology of when the tests were carried out and what point the
investigation had reached at this point.

RJ : Did you make any
personal assessment, did you ponder in your own mind about the
inherent plausibility or otherwise of the police position as
apparently reported?DP : Well, I mean, I
didn't know what was going on, but my assessment was that, you know,
there must be some form of plausibility in what a modern police force
is telling you in the 21st century in a European country. You
wouldn't think they would just, you know.RJ : You were
telling us earlier that the Portuguese police investigation was
fatally flawed, and that was the view you formed from the outset.
That's in your witness statement.DP : Yeah, I'm
talking now about the lack of appeals and the -- the investigation
didn't get off the ground, but I don't know what's going on with
experts examining forensic evidence and all this sort of thing.
That's just a different part of it.RJ : And then at
31634, 10 December, again this is your piece.DP : Mm.

RJ : The thrust of this
piece is that Portuguese detectives were apparently fearful of the
fact that British police would not properly interrogate the McCanns;
is that right?DP : Yes.

RJ : Did you think at the
time there was any basis for that fear?DP : Yeah, I did,
yeah.RJ : From your own
knowledge of British police and Portuguese police? Did you really
think that?DP : Yes.LJL : What did you think, that the British police would go easy
on suspects?DP : No, that the
Portuguese police believed that. There seemed to be lots of -- I
don't know if it was cultural differences, but there seemed to be
lots of disagreements going on behind the scenes between various
authorities, and the officers who were investigating this case, the
senior officers, this is what they were saying. They believed that
-- I think they were concerned they'd complain that they'd ask for
information and were upset because they only got one piece of paper
or something, background information.There was obviously issues going
on behind the scenes between the Portuguese police and other
authorities.RJ : Okay. There's
only one other piece I'm going to ask you about, it's 31629, please,
Mr Pilditch, 12 December 2007. This is the piece about the priest.
Do you remember this one?DP : Yes.

RJ : Your source, I think,
three-quarters of the way down the page, is a "close friend of
the priest"; is that right?DP : The priest?RJ : Yes.DP : Yes.RJ : Are you able to
give us any further information about that?DP : Um ... well,
this was information that was passed on to me by people who were in
contact with the priest. I mean, I was speaking all the time to
parishioners and worshippers in Praia da Luz.RJ : You think it
might have been one of those individuals who passed it on to you; is
this right?DP : Yes.RJ : This is, if I
may say so, a rather loaded story because the suggestion is, do I
have this right, that the priest felt under tremendous emotional
strain because some sort of confession had been given to him by Dr
Kate McCann. That's what you're getting at, isn't it?DP : Where have -- is that
part of the story?RJ : Yes. Right in the
middle of the page: "Investigators became convinced Kate had
confessedto him -- but the
tormented priest insisted he would stand by his vow to take the
secrets of the confessional to the grave." Are you sure about
that sentence, Mr Pilditch?DP : I know that the
police interviewed the priest and nothing came from it, and I think
this is what the police were saying.RJ : It might be
said that you were drawing a bit of an inference here, that you knew
from what you were told that the priest had been interviewed by the
police, but it's just the clause "the tormented priest insisted
he would stand by his vow to take the secrets of the confessional to
the grave", I'm troubled a bit by that, whether that's a bit of
journalistic licence on your part. Are you sure about the accuracy
of that statement?DP : I think the
accuracy is that priests -- that's how confessional works, isn't it?RJ : As a matter of
general proposition it may well be, but you're going a bit further
than that, because you're suggesting that not merely would the priest
stand by his religious obligation, but he would also be taking the
secrets of the confessional to his grave because he was given a
confession by Dr Kate McCann. Isn't that what you're getting at?

DP : I think the
Portuguese police were saying that they'd interviewed Father Pacheco
and they hadn't got anything of any use. The problem with a lot of
this stuff was the way the information was leaking out, it was like
thinking out loud, really.RJ : Yes.DP : These were the
sort of conversations that in a police sort of a, you know, force in
this country would be the sort of things that officers would be
talking about behind the scenes. But --RJ : But all you
knew as a fact, if your source was to be trusted, and let's assume
for the purposes of this exchange that your source could be, is that
the police had interviewed the priest.DP : Yes.RJ : But everything
else was an inference that you might have drawn, indeed did draw, in
particular the bit about the tormented priest insisting he would
stand by his vow to take the secrets of the confessional to the
grave. You weren't told that by anyone, were you?DP : I think the
police were explaining why they thought they wouldn't get anything
from the priest, because he was duty-bound not to tell them
anything.RJ : Mm.

LJL : Do
you not get the point that Mr Jay is making?DP : Sorry.LJL : That the inference in the sentence goes rather beyond that and
suggests that the priest had a secret to take to the grave?DP : It says
"investigators became convinced". I mean, that --RJ : Yes.
Absolutely. If you read the whole lot as one piece, it reinforces
precisely that point.DP : Mm.RJ : Because here we
have a very -- well, I've made the point already, Mr Pilditch. I'm
not sure that you're fully seeing it, though.DP : No.RJ : Okay.DP : What I'm saying
is this is what the investigators -- they interviewed the priest and
got nothing from him, and I think they probably thought that they
were just going through a routine of interviewing a priest. I think
they suspected that they wouldn't get anything from him. So I'm just
saying what was going on, what the police were -- how they were -- as
I say, this is like a bit of thinking out loud by the police that was
in the public domain and it's the sort of thing that normally police
officers wouldn't sort of tell you, really.

RJ : To be fair to you, Mr
Pilditch, can we be clear about two or three matters? First of all,
you don't, of course, have a lawyer advising you as to what to put or
not to put into your copy?DP : No.RJ : We know that,
it's not standard practice for that to happen. That happens higher
up the chain, doesn't it?DP : Yes.RJ : And secondly,
it's ultimately the editor's decision, not yours, as to whether to
publish any particular story that is put up by you or any other
journalist; is that right?DP : Yeah.RJ : And in terms of
the chains or lines of communication, the standard line of
communication is between you and the news desk, and then the news
desk and the editor; is that also right?DP : Yeah.RJ : Did you have
any conversations with the editor at any stage about any of these
stories?DP : No.

RJ : I think you've told
us earlier that any misgivings you had about the accuracy of the
stories and the difficulties you were having were shared with the
news desk; is that correct?DP : Yes.

RJ : Is that something you
think might have happened once or something that might have happened
more than once?DP : Sorry?RJ : Your
discussions with the news desk?DP : Yeah.RJ : In particular
about misgivings in relation to the story and the difficulties you
were having in verifying a story.

DP : I think every
day you would have conversations with the news desk throughout the
day and you'd explain the information that you had and where it had
come from. As I say, you'd explain the caveats that were attached to
it.

RJ : My final point
is, is this a possible explanation for what happened here in relation
to, to use your term, the story: the McCanns are declared arguidos by
the Portuguese authorities on 7 September 2007, and the direction of
the story changes?DP : Yeah.

RJ : And instead of being
a standard story about child abduction, it becomes a rather more
sinister story, in inverted commas. It's that story or version which
starts to dictate the direction in which people like you are writing
their copy? Is that a fair characterisation of what might be
happening here?DP : Well, at that
particular point in time, I was reporting on the sort of day-to-day
developments that were going on on the ground, and this is pretty
much what was happening. During this time, there was also -- there
were contradictory reports. You know, the Portuguesepolice at different
times were saying contradictory things. One day they're saying that,
you know, they're going down one route and the next day they're
heading off in a completely different direction. So not all the
reports were of this nature, but at this particular point in time
when the investigation had reached this point, then this was the sort
of information that was coming out.RJ : Okay. There is
one more question, I hope you don't mind me putting this. I
appreciate that it's the editor's decision as to whether this
material is published.DP : Yes.RJ : But did you
have any personal concerns about this material going up to the editor
with the likelihood that it would be published simply on the human
basis that we have already a tragic situation, parents have lost
their daughter in the sense that the daughter has disappeared?DP : Yes.

RJ : Absolutely clear.
They are in a state of emotional turmoil?DP : Yeah.

RJ : And then to add to
that natural emotional turmoil, what is being written about them.DP : Yeah.RJ : How does this
factor into this, if at all, from your perspective? Not from your
perspective now, but from your perspective at the time?DP : At the time, I
really didn't know what was going on. I knew that the police
investigation was headed down this particular path and, as I say, I'd
have no idea why the police were heading down this path and, well,
this is the point that we were at and this was -- I didn't know what
happened to Madeleine McCann, I still don't know, so I'm just saying
that at this time, this was what was happening and I was reporting on
the developments that were happening, but I didn't know ifthe police were barking
up the wrong tree or if, you know, as I say, you'd expect them to
have some form of competency.

RJ : I'm not sure you have
answered my question. Can you remember what it was? I can repeat it
again.DP : Yes, if you could
repeat it, yeah.RJ : You already have a
huge amount of emotional turmoil: a four-year-old child has
disappeared. It goes without saying.DP : Yeah.RJ : And then people like
you, if you don't mind me putting it in those terms, are writing
stories which imply that the child has not been abducted, something
far more sinister has happened.DP : Right.RJ : The propensity
of those matters being written about would naturally add to the
emotional turmoil which is already immense. It's whether that enters
into your thinking at the time at all when you are writing these
stories?DP : Well, I think I
explained. I mean, there is emotional turmoil, but I'm reporting on
what's happening on the ground.RJ : Okay.DP : On that
particular day.RJ : I think I
understand, Mr Pilditch. Thank you very much.LJL : I have a slightly different point, which is this: you
may not understand the Portuguese law, and that's entirely fair
enough.DP : Yeah.LJL : But you do understand, I'm sure you would agree, that stories have to
stand up?DP : Yes.LJL : And that your paper is at risk of massive damages claims if you write
something that's defamatory?DP : Yes.LJL : That you can't then stand up?DP : Yes. Well, I
think I've said that in my statement.LJL : I understand. You were getting all sorts of tittle-tattle
--DP : Right.LJL : -- from different people in circumstances when you knew the
police couldn't officially talk, is that fair?DP : Yes.LJL : And as far as you were concerned they were going off in
very different directions, one day this, one day something else;
that's your assessment of what they'd been doing?DP : But at this
point in time, they were very much focusing on this.

LJL : So
be it, but you had the experience of what they had been doing.DP : Mm.LJL : Did you ever have any concern that you wouldn't be able to stand up
this story?DP : Yeah.LJL : And did that give rise to concern that you shouldn't be writing it as
it was written?DP : I think I was writing
it in the only way I could write it, because I was explaining where
my sources were coming from and I was explaining that this isn't
something that I can prove or confirm. But those sort of decisions
would be made further up the chain about the law. But I was just
writing on developments that were going on on the ground at that
time.LJL : So you saw your role purely to reduce whatever you heard,
from whatever source you heard it, into a story?DP : It's not
tittle-tattle, you see. This was --LJL : Isn't it?DP : No, because it
was information that was coming from the senior detectives
investigating the case.LJL : Or so you were told.DP : Well, I know
now that it is, because there's files that have been released and
there's --LJL : Yes, but you didn't know at the
time.DP : No, but I knew at the
time that these were genuine lines of enquiry and this particular
line was the only line the police were pursuing at that time. I
didn't know the truth.

LJL : But the evidence you've got, that you've now seen, doesn't in fact
justify some of this stuff, does it? Because the DNA was not in this
condition that you described it in your article.DP : Yeah. The
police were claiming it was in a -- I think the police were telling
lies and trying to claim they had more than they actually had. But
in 2008 in July when the police released their official file, this
was some time after this period, there's lots of documentation and
there's lots of all sorts of statements and -- the whole file that
they'd been investigating. It's only when that was published that
you could see that actually this whole thing was based on a false
premise. The police went as hard as they did down this line and they
had no reason to do it, they had no evidence to back them up.LJL : So all the stuff, for example, about what the priest might
have been told, it's all fluff. There's nothing to it.DP : It's all things
that were happening at the time. But if you look at things now,
knowing what we know in the public domain, it's a very different
picture.LJL : I
agree, and that's why I asked you whether you were concerned at the
time that you couldn't stand the story up with the risk that your
paper was exposed to massive damages claims, as indeed they were.DP : Well, I was
uncomfortable writing stories like this, but I felt it was the only
way to write it, but the sort of decisions about the risk were taken
by lawyers and by executives on the paper.LJL : Did you write a piece, perhaps not for publication, but for
your editors, to underline the extreme fragility of this information?DP : They were well
aware of that. I mean, this was the only way you could operate in
Portugal at that time.LJL : I see.DP : And other
newspapers were doing it. There was no other way of doing it. All I
could do was exactly spell out who was saying what. I was saying if
it was a police source, this is what the police are saying. Or if
it was somebody else, I'd say this is what they were saying. As a
journalist, as a reporter, you want to write stories based on fact
when you know it's fact, but because of the secrecy of justice law in
Portugal, you had to do it in a different way, an unsatisfactory way,
but the only way you could do it, which was to say, "I don't
know that this is fact, but this is what people are saying about
these different things".LJL : Yes, well, I think we've probably done that point. Thank you.

Discussion re procedureMr Dingemans : May I ask
some questions?LJL : Yes, you may. Just before you do,Mr Dingemans, I think
Mr Sherborne also wants to. I think you would probably rather ask
afterMr Sherborne. What's
the topic, Mr Sherborne?

Mr Sherborne : Sir
the topic is really one of the topics that you raised in the
questions you asked Mr Pilditch. It's in paragraph 24 of his witness
statement, and it refers to his assessment, if I can put it that way,
of the police files. You've heard Mr Pilditch say more than once now
that the police files have revealed that the articles he was writing
were truthful and accurate, and I'd like to pick him up on that
comment and take him through one or two of the articles to
demonstrate howthat's simply incorrect.

LJL : But I don't think he's quite saying that and I don't think
we need to go too much into the facts. As I understand what you're
saying, as I understand what the witness said, he was accurately
reporting that which the police were thinking; he wasn't accurately
reporting that which the police could actually prove, because that's
not what the police were telling him.

Mr Sherborne : What he
says in his statement, sir, is: "Under the Portuguese system,
the authorities released the official police file ..." Then he
refers to the documents in there, then says: "Through the
release of those documents and subsequent legal actions in Portugal
it is now a matter of public record that the reports I was writing
between September 2007 and January 2008 were truthful and accurate."
So that is a fairly sweeping statement and it is one which, very
simply, can be demonstrated to be untruthful and inaccurate, and I
would ask you to be able to do so. I can do it, as I say, relatively
shortly, and then there are one or two supplemental questions I'd
like to ask him on behalf of Dr Kate and Dr Gerry McCann.MrD: Sir,
may I make submissions to my learned friend about whether this is
appropriate?LJL : You may, but I think, in the light of my understanding of
the evidence of this witness, the truthfulness and accuracy is not
intended to reflect the facts as revealed by the evidence, but as
revealed by the police concerns.DP : Yes.LJL : But you can ask that question and then -- I mean, nobody is
suggesting, and he certainly isn't suggesting, as I understand the
witness, that any of the allegations in relation to DNA or in
relation to these other features are established by the facts in the
record; merely, as I understood it, by what the police believed,
even though they couldn't prove a single word of it.MrS :
Indeed. I don't think Mr Pilditch could possibly suggest for one
minute that they were true.LJL : Yes.MrS : But
what he does suggest is that there were documents and other material
in the police file which support the truth of what he was saying the
police were saying, if I can put it that way. And that is simply
incorrect. I can demonstrate that by three articles, and I can do
it very quickly.LJL : Right, let me hear what Mr Dingemans says about that.MrD: Sir,
the whole purpose of your Inquiry is inquisitorial. It is at this
stage not going into dissent of adversarial fact-finding matters.
There has been no notice from this core participant. Contrast a
matter when we wanted to raise questions of his witnesses, we would
put them through counsel to the Inquiry, and we respectfully submit
that you would permit this whole Inquiry to be hijacked into
fact-finding matters which are not suitable for this stage of this
process.

LJL : I
understand the point, but I have raised concerns, as you heard at the
very end of the witness's evidence.MrD: Yes.LJL : The witness has made it clear the limit of his reporting.
It's probably not going to advance the customs, practice and ethics
analysis to look at whether the way in which the allegations dribbled
out of the Portuguese police were picked up and reported, but on the
other hand, in the same way that I've been content for various core
participants to stand up and make a correcting statement simply so
that the public domain -- so there isn't a misleading impression
given, I don't think it's appropriate to prevent Mr Sherborne from
doing that, and maybe he can do it by way of statement, because I've
got the evidence of the witness on the topic. But to cut it out
entirely runs the risk of leaving a potentially unfair picture. But
whether it goes to customs, practise and ethics, I take your
point.

MrD: My other
point is questions to this witness. There's been no notice that he
was going to be asked questions on behalf of this core participant.
I have no problems, and, sir, it's entirely up to you whether you
permit people to make statements, but in our submission there
shouldn't be a practice of standing up to ask questions simply
because they want to ask further details when there's been no notice
to the relevant witness.LJL : Well, I don't know whether this is a topic which Mr
Sherborne informed Mr Jay about.MrD: He
didn't, according to the information I have.LJL : I certainly required all core participants to do that, so
that we could make a decision, and I think that was the approach that
I adopted.MrD: Sir,
that's only my point on this point. The only reason for objecting is
if one is trying to prepare fairly witnesses for what may happen and
then people decide to pick up points that they haven't decided or
bothered to notify to counsel to the Inquiry.LJL : All right. Well, Mr Sherborne, that seems a not unfair
point.MrS : Can I deal
with that point before I deal with my substantive one, and that's
this. You'll appreciate that this witness statement was only
provided I think to us yesterday afternoon. That's the first I saw
of this witness statement.

LJL : I'd be very surprised, but --MrD: It was
provided to the Inquiry two weeks ago. I can't talk about my learned
friend.MrS : It may
have been provided to the Inquiry two weeks ago, I did not see it
until yesterday afternoon.LJL : All right.MrS : But
that perhaps is a point of lesser importance. A point of greater
importance is that this paragraph 24 was a matter that only was
raised by you, sir, in your question to Mr Pilditch, and that's when
he relied on it to positively reinforce the fact that what he had
published by way of reports of what the police were saying was
truthful and accurate, having had sight of the Portuguese police
file. That is why I stand to ask those questions.LJL : No, no, Mr Sherborne, that doesn't work, because, as you
will know, the statement would be going on the Internet in any event,
so it's a public document for all to see, and if the point had to be
made, the point was going to be made as soon as you read it, even
if it was only last night.

MrS : Sir, when
a witness seeks to reinforce evidence he's given in response to a
question you've asked, it assumes far more importance than it would
do in the pages of the witness statement that have been provided.

LJL : Identify to me your three examples, please.MrS : Sir, I can
do it by way of a speech.LJL : No, I don't want you to make a speech. I want you to
identify the three examples.MrS : The
three examples are firstly, and they're examples that -- I tried to
pick on examples as Mr Jay was going through, which are not the same
articles. October 1, 2007, which is an article -- I don't have the
exhibits, so I can't tell you the page. It's entitled "Now
police say she fell down the steps: the hunt for Madeleine".
It's one that Mr Pilditch co-wrote with Mr Evans, but on this
occasion, since his name comes first, I assume he will accept that he
was responsible for it.LJL : Let's just see it. I'm concerned with the facts so that an
impression should be -- an incorrect impression should be put right.
So 1 October, did you say?

MrS : Yes: "Now
police say she fell down the steps" is the front page headline,
"The hunt for Madeleine". And the opening words are:
"Madeleine McCann's parents faced new smearsyesterday after it was
reported their daughter died falling downstairs. It is claimed
Portuguese police are 100 per cent certain Madeleine was killed in an
accident at her family's holiday apartment and Kate and Gerry
covered up the tragedy."LJL : Right?MrS : "The
theory is Madeleine, four, wandered out, stumbled" --LJL : All right, but what's the point?MrS : The
point is this: there is nothing in the Portuguese police file to
suggest that Madeleine had been harmed in any way.LJL : Yes, but --MrS : There is also --LJL : But are you able to say that the police were not putting
that out?MrS : There is nothing in the police file which suggests that the police
had found evidence that Madeleine had been harmed in any way.LJL : Yes. My question was rather different. Are you able to
say that the police didn't put that out?

MrS : What I'm
able to say is there is no suggestion the police were putting that
out in the police file.LJL : All right.

MrS : That's why
I say this is not about disproving that the articles were true or
that the facts suggested were true because it's not even stated they
are. It's about disproving that there was evidence or that the
police were suggesting there was evidence to support these
allegations. And there is nothing in the police files to suggest the
police were suggesting that. If one turns then to 17 October, this is
a point that was raised not in relation to this article, this
article is Mr Pilditch's article alone, entitled "Parents' car
hid a corpse. 'It was under carpet in boot', say police", and
refers to the DNA evidence.LJL : Yes.MrS : It's
right to say that there is nothing in the police files to suggest
that Madeleine's DNA was found in the car. Indeed, as the police
files show, and as Mr Pilditch would know, the McCanns only hired the
car after Madeleine had disappeared.LJL : Yes, but that's the same point about the
conclusive/inconclusive DNA, isn't it?

MrS : It's a
similar point, but as I say, what the police files show is that no
DNA of Madeleine was ever found in the car, so there's nothing in the
police files to support the suggestion that DNA of hers was found,
which is what is stated in the article.LJL : All right, and the third point?MrS : And the
third for example relates to one that I think Mr Jay did take Mr
Pilditch to, which is the priest bans Madeleine, the 12 December
article. It relate to this. I don't know whether you have that
article.LJL : Yes.MrS : It
refers to the investigators becoming convinced that Kate had
confessed to the priest, and of course again there is nothing in the
police file to say that Kate McCann had confessed to the priest.
Indeed, the witness statement of the priest makes perfectly plain,
and that is in the police file, that no such confession was given.LJL : All right, I understand the point. Thank you. Mr Pilditch,
I am going to ask you the question in this way: you've obviously seen
this entire file.DP : I've seen it
some time ago. I have seen it.LJL : Well, you can
consider over the -- no, I won't ask you to do that.DP : Could I just say
something in relation to this?LJL : All right.DP : It's not just the
police file that I'm referring to here. I'm talking about statements
that have been made in courts, and in fact the chief -- the head of
the police inquiry has written a book, and I'm talking about a whole
series of different sources of information that are now in the public
domain --LJL : Oh, well, then --DP : -- that weren't
in the public domain at that time. It's not just the police file in
isolation I'm talking about.LJL : Then actually your sentence is quite wrong in paragraph 24,
because your sentence in paragraph 24 says: "Through the release
of those documents [that's the police file] and subsequent legal
actions in Portugal, it's now a matter of public record that the
reports I'm writing were truthful and accurate."DP : Yes.MrD: Sir,
the legal action was concerned to put -- My learned friend Mr
Sherborne was seeking to cross-examine on a false premise anyway,
because he's ignored the legal actions.

LJL : I've got the point. But more significantly it's, as I expressed the
view, slightly dependent upon the brief that Mr Pilditch was
fulfilling the extent to which decisions thereafter were made,which
were appropriate. Right. I understand the point.

MrS : With
respect, sir, I wasn't allowed to cross-examine. If I had
cross-examined, it would not have been on a false premise.

LJL : I'm not going to get into the issue between you and Mr
Dingemans. I'm not going to go down the route of trying to unpick
what one Portuguese police officer said, either in a book or in a
legal proceedings or in the record. Everybody is agreed that there
is absolutely no foundation at all for the allegation that emerged
throughout the public hearing throughout the press at this time, that
Dr and Dr McCann were involved in any way in any inappropriate
conduct in relation to the disappearance of their daughter. So that
doesn't need to be established for me and in the same way that I
wasn't going to go into what happened in relation to the City
Slickers column, this is very much a side issue. I understand the
point, and I understand the reason why it is very important for your
clients to make that position critically clear, and I am happy to
emphasise it and I am sure thatMr Dingemans wouldn't
want to say anything to the contrary, and he is nodding, so I put
that into the record. But further than that I simply don't consider
it necessary to go. If I say, because of my natural sympathy for Dr
and Dr McCann, that it's appropriate, then actually I have opened a
door which I cannot prevent other people from seeking to examine in
different ways and I haven't sufficient requirement to go into these
areas to justify it.MrS : Sir,
I accept that. It is simply this. You need to consider, obviously,
in terms of the culture, practices and ethics of the press, whether
it was responsible or, as one might say, utterly irresponsible to
publish this kind of information.LJL : I think you'll find that the question I asked was designed
to that very issue.MrS : I
understand that, but it is the statement you've seen in paragraph 24
of the way in which it's being said these stories were being put
together that is necessary to be tested and that's why I asked for
it to be tested in the way I did.LJL : I understand. Right. Thank you very much, we'll resume at
2.05 pm.